On 6/6/11 7:05 PM, Casey McCann wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Matthew Steelemdste...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
branchApplicative = liftA3 (\b t f - if b then t else f)
This definition doesn't satisfy the laws given for the Branching
class; it will execute the effects of both branches
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM, KC kc1...@gmail.com wrote:
If new intermediate classes crop up then there would be no point in fixing
class (Applicative m) = Monad m where
since it would have to be changed if new intermediate classes are found.
You might check out a few articles regarding
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Casey McCann syntaxgli...@gmail.com wrote:
ArrowChoice and ArrowApply are conceptually distinct and I expect
there are instances of the former that have no possible instance for
the latter. Branching vs. Monad I am much less certain of.
For a real-time or
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Casey McCann syntaxgli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:55 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier forms of my reactive demand programming model [1] - before I
switched to arrows - would qualify. The model has limited side-effects
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:51:47PM -0700, KC wrote:
If new intermediate classes crop up then there would be no point in fixing
class (Applicative m) = Monad m where
since it would have to be changed if new intermediate classes are
found.
There actually is at least one intermediate class
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:51:47PM -0700, KC wrote:
If new intermediate classes crop up then there would be no point in fixing
class (Applicative m) = Monad m where
since it would have to be changed if new
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
The idea is that Applicative computations
have a fixed structure which is independent of intermediate results;
Monad computations correspond to (potentially) infinitely branching
trees, since intermediate results
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Casey McCann syntaxgli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
The idea is that Applicative computations
have a fixed structure which is independent of intermediate results;
Monad computations correspond to
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Matthew Steele mdste...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
I think Branching is to Monad what ArrowChoice is to ArrowApply.
Branching allows the shape of the computation to depend on run-time
values (which you can't do with Applicative), but still allows only a
finite number
If new intermediate classes crop up then there would be no point in fixing
class (Applicative m) = Monad m where
since it would have to be changed if new intermediate classes are found.
I realize non-existence proofs are hard.
--
--
Regards,
KC
___
On 06/06/2011, at 5:51 , KC wrote:
If new intermediate classes crop up then there would be no point in fixing
class (Applicative m) = Monad m where
since it would have to be changed if new intermediate classes are found.
I realize non-existence proofs are hard.
Not as hard as
11 matches
Mail list logo